What is the strangest thing you believe to be true?

Posted by Spocko on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at 06:47 AM. Read 4598 times. Tags:
{name} pic

The guys at MemeTherapy have been running a series of interesting threads about Strange Beliefs over the last few weeks. It’s a fun read. I thought the kind folks here at the Bastard’s might like to give it a try.

Their question:
“What is the strangest thing you believe to be true?”

My response…

At first glance this question appears simple enough. I can think of many fascinating subjects I have read about over the years; nanotech, “gray goo”, 11-dimensional space, relativity, the possibility of time travel, quantum entanglement, wave particle duality, virtual reality. There flows a never ending stream of ideas that wells up from the spring that is the Mind of Man. I could have selected any item from this list, or more, and would have provided a reasonably interesting response. How does one choose from such a fantastical array of knowledge? Technology can indeed appear strange or magical to one unfamiliar with a particular field of study. Some feel that medical wonders, from stem-cell research and genetic engineering to face transplants, are the definition of the word “strange”. Others may perceive the political and ideological mindset of their “enemies” to be the pinnacle of the eldritch.

But to ask an atheist what he “believes” to be true introduces quite a different “texture” to the question posed. The meaning of the word “believe” may easily be misconstrued. I am often bewildered by the multiple usage of some words from the English language. To some, “belief” is only given to that which has overwhelming evidence to support it, such evidence that there is no point to even use the word “believe”. Does one say: “I believe the sky is blue”? No. We say: “The sky is blue”. We can test this statement through many types of observation, experimentation, and verification. We know the sky is blue. Some use the word “believe” in the same manner that they use the word “think”, e.g. “I believe I’ll have another beer!” - the two words are interchangeable here. Then we come, of course, to the most common meaning of the word “believe”, that equivalent to “faith”; acceptance of a proposition without any need, or desire, for supporting evidence whatsoever.

I avoid the use of the words “believe” and “belief” because of their imprecise usage. There are, however, certain words I’ll use in spite of their misuse. For example, I have no qualms stating that I’m an “atheist” even though that word has been intentionally misused and demonized, perhaps since its inception. An atheist is simply one who does not believe. To be an atheist one need only answer “no” to the question “Do you believe [in god(s)]?” No further assertion is made.

I prefer to use the verb “know” instead of “believe” and, like Great Lady Science, accept that knowledge can be transitory and must evolve as new evidence is discovered. Ironically, my answer to the question “What is the strangest thing you know to be true?” would bring me back to the issue of faith.

The strangest thing I know of is the ability of the human mind to accept the most incredible of statements by the simple application of the magic word “faith”. How is it that, in the 21st century, we still have people that believe the world is only 6000 years old in light of the evidence from various fields of science in support of its vastly older age? How can one ignore mounds of fossil evidence for the progression of evolution and only see the “gaps”. What is it that allows the brilliant scientist who, otherwise, demands empirical data to advance his theories, to assert that there is a god when no one has presented any evidence to corroborate the existence of said deity? Is it a mental blind spot, a type of intellectual laziness used to avoid investigating fully the reason one believes one fable over another?

This strange thing called faith intrigues me. I have studied several of the mythologies of various civilizations throughout history and I find the subject fascinating. The majority of us appear to be so desperate for answers that we will accept any concept of reality that we are subjected to at an early age. We indoctrinate our children into a system of thought handed down by our progenitors and our children will usually teach their own children the same vision; the meme propagates. The evolution of religion presents the prime example of this strange ability to close the mind to healthy skepticism and reason. I wonder if we have herein evidence for the existence of a parasitic meme, one that propagates from the pulpit and lives in symbiosis with those that hunger for its anesthetic affects.

I look forward to a future where such strange ideas as faith and belief have faded into obscurity and disrepute as have the gods of old. A future where the unknown is regarded as an opportunity, not an enemy to be feared and obscured by the blinders of myth.

What’s the strangest thing you “believe”?

Comments:

Page 9 of 9 pages « First  <  7 8 9

zilch Austria Posted on 10/04/2006 at 01:46 AM

zilch pic

Thank you Spocko! Consi, the ball is in your court.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

zilch Austria Posted on 10/04/2006 at 01:57 AM

zilch pic

Consi snuck his reply in before mine, so I’m double dipping.  You ask:

What are the many forms of evidence that life came from non-life?  Please supply the who, what, where, when, why and most importantly, how.

You’ve already admitted that life did come from non-life:

zilch: first there was no life, then there was.  What part of that don’t you understand?

Consi:  I understand that very clearly.  In fact, I would say there is no argument for that statement.

So what is the argument?  As I’ve said, we don’t know how it happened.  But happen it obviously did.  As to the other questions, I’ve already answered them.  Of course, “who” and “why” are inapplicable to abiogenesis, because there was no “who” to have a “why”.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Consigliere United States Posted on 10/04/2006 at 02:08 AM

Consigliere pic

You’ve already admitted that life did come from non-life:

zilch: first there was no life, then there was.  What part of that don’t you understand?

Consi:  I understand that very clearly.  In fact, I would say there is no argument for that statement.

So what is the argument? 

Stating first there was no life and then there was life is not the same statement as non-life begot life.  They are two different statements.  If you don’t understand the distinction, and why the distinction is important, then I can’t help you.

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self--well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

zilch Austria Posted on 10/04/2006 at 04:08 AM

zilch pic

Stating first there was no life and then there was life is not the same statement as non-life begot life.

Oh?  Pardon my stupidity, Consi, but I don’t see the distinction, unless you have some exotic definition for “begot”.  If first there was no life, and then there was life, then life perforce came from, or was begotten by, or developed from, or evolved from, or was self-organized by, non-life.  If you disagree, please explain why.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Consigliere United States Posted on 10/04/2006 at 11:33 AM

Consigliere pic

Pardon my stupidity, Consi, but I don’t see the distinction

Then we are done.
 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self--well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

zilch Austria Posted on 10/04/2006 at 11:39 AM

zilch pic

Nice exit, Consi. I’ll know better next time, and not attempt a rational discussion with you.  Cheers, zilch

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 10/04/2006 at 11:55 AM

decrepitoldfool pic

Well Consi, I can see the distinction, and it’s a pointless one.  Clearly life came from nonlife; at issue is the modality of that change.  Nonlife can’t “beget” anything or it would be alive, but it can be transformed by an external force into something alive or at least self-replicating, which is on the road to life.  Was that force God, or some nondirected interaction of energy and matter?  In a nutshell that is the question of abiogenesis.

Plainly you want to believe the former.  Over the years I have found that class of explanations to fail repeatedly on observable things, so tend to prefer the class of explanations with a much better track record.  It is not an assertion of fact so much as an assessment of probability.

What about that pointless distinction, then?  Even if we managed to create self-replicating molecules in the lab by combining energy and matter in approximation of early Earth conditions, you’d continue to insist on the God model of abiogenesis.  I go by track record, you go by what you wanna believe.  But you don’t ‘wanna’ believe you are capable of any such unsophisticated bias in your assessment of probability.

Fine with me, believe whatever you want.  Just don’t pretend you’re all that logical.

Consigliere United States Posted on 10/04/2006 at 01:52 PM

Consigliere pic

Plainly you want to believe the former.

Go read my posts above.  What I have said, is directly contrary to that.  I actually believe....ah to hell with it.  I said I was done when zilch couldn’t see the distinction and so I am.
 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self--well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

Patness Canada Posted on 10/04/2006 at 04:24 PM

Patness pic

Stating first there was no life and then there was life is not the same statement as non-life begot life.

Except where non-life is the sole resource from which life could have appeared, given that the existence of life is evident. You’re right though. At least this early in, we need to establish that non-life was the only basis from which life could appear.

To say the contrary, however, is to say that life brought life. Specifically, it minds that life preceded life. Life cannot precede itself.

Thus, when it comes to the origin of life, there is no other option. Or at least, there is no reason for us to assume that there is some other option. “Life from non-life” is sufficiently general to encompass all possibilities.

It’s not “5+7=12”. It’s “5+7=7+5, because addition is commutative”. It is not conclusive, but it is not irrational. Maybe I’m wrong.

 Signature 

The Kidney Punch Of Legendary Peace

One sure and primary and fundamental fact is the joint existence of a subject and of its world. The one does not exist without the other. I acquire no understanding of myself except as I take account of objects, of the surroundings. I do not think unless I think of things — and there I find myself. - Bruce Lee

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 10/04/2006 at 04:58 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

I actually believe....ah to hell with it.  I said I was done when zilch couldn’t see the distinction and so I am.

Guys… I think he clicked on “unsubscribe”!  Get out the beer!

LuckyJohn19 Australia Posted on 10/04/2006 at 08:56 PM

LuckyJohn19 pic

Bummer - I enjoyed that better than school.  smile
For just a flash (of seemingly non-intelectual understanding) I actually understood what Consi meant by the subtle difference between the two issues.
Then DoF captured it with: at issue is the modality of that change.
That ‘small’ gap between life and non-life - what filled it? 
One fills it with god and ID; one fills it with nature.
Ultimately it’s just about the source of that energy - did it come from a knowing entity or not?
One desires a reason for being; the other needs no being for a reason to be.  smile
Yeah - it’s 11am. A beer sounds good.

 Signature 

I’ve discovered that it all boils down to brain wiring: your brain is wired to worship magic or it isn’t, either it’s wired to utilize logic or it isn’t, either it’s analytical of myths or it isn’t.

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 10/04/2006 at 09:13 PM

Sadie Jane pic

LuckyJohn: Yeah - it’s 11am. A beer sounds good.

Damn, John! You hit the bottle early, don’t you?  LOL

 Signature 

Thinking is the best way to travel.

KPatrickGlover United States Posted on 10/04/2006 at 09:23 PM

KPatrickGlover pic

Ah, beer is for breakfast. On my day off yesterday I was into the bourbon around noon.....

 Signature 

(Parenthetically Speaking)

MySpace

KPatrickGlover United States Posted on 10/04/2006 at 09:26 PM

KPatrickGlover pic

Back to original concept of the thread:

I don’t believe that Jack The Ripper was the sexual serial killer that most believe him to be.

I believe that the killings were politically motivated and that the killer was a leader in the anarchist movement at the time. Probably Russian, probably a failed medical student from Trinity.

 Signature 

(Parenthetically Speaking)

MySpace

LuckyJohn19 Australia Posted on 10/04/2006 at 10:39 PM

LuckyJohn19 pic

Damn, John! You hit the bottle early, don’t you?

Actually it’s quite late and anyway I blame DoF.
I would never have thunk of it if he hadn’t mentioned it.  LOL
Being retired with no bodies depending on me I rarely plan a day - they just seem to transpire.
It’ll be interesting what this one morphs into.
I have one stubby left in the fridge, about 3 glasses of Fruity Red left in the cask, about a 1/4 glass of Stones Green Ginger Wine left in a bottle, the club is about 250 metres away and I have $40 left to last till next Thursday.
Decisions. smile

Weird, isn’t it?
My good mate* just rang to ask if I felt like going to the club for lunch and then ... ?
How can I refuse?
It means he’ll shout** all afternoon and all I gotta do is pick him up and take him home.
My innocent looking little (girl’s) car knows the way - the only downside is that it’s Race Weekend (Bathurst 1000) and there’re lotsa people and imported cops in town.
Ah. If you don’t take risks, how do you know you’re alive?  LOL
It’s not as if I’m gonna get shit-faced paraletic pissed but I know I’ll definitely be over the legal 0.05 limit.
*A mate will help you move a couch - a good mate will help you move a body.
** Shout means to buy a round. It’s a left over from the old days when you had to shout over the noise in the public bar to get a drink. It’s probably in the Urban Dictionary but my PC’s doing its ‘I’m not gonna let you open another window’ thing.
Oh, that’s right, I’ve already had a coupla joints as well - I wondered why I felt a bit ‘pissed’.  LOL
Remember KPG. In Oz, pissed can also mean drunk?
Seeya later.  wink

 Signature 

I’ve discovered that it all boils down to brain wiring: your brain is wired to worship magic or it isn’t, either it’s wired to utilize logic or it isn’t, either it’s analytical of myths or it isn’t.

zilch Austria Posted on 10/05/2006 at 02:05 AM

zilch pic

“Life from non-life” is sufficiently general to encompass all possibilities.

Exactly my reasoning, Patness, which is why I politely asked Consi to explain what distinction he saw.  Assuming that any God is also alive, and that we’re talking about the whole Universe here, every scenario is covered, except the common creationist position that “God has been here forever”.  But Consi already ruled that out by agreeing that there was no life first, and then life.  So there’s no distinction that I can see.

I guess I’m done too.  I’m disappointed that Consi turned tail rather than answer a simple polite question.  Even though we disagree about many things, I had thought he was more civil than that.  Live and learn.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

LuckyJohn19 Australia Posted on 10/05/2006 at 02:36 AM

LuckyJohn19 pic

“God has been here forever”. 

But Consi already ruled that out by agreeing that there was no life first, and then life.

Damn. I missed that obvious one completely.  LOL

 Signature 

I’ve discovered that it all boils down to brain wiring: your brain is wired to worship magic or it isn’t, either it’s wired to utilize logic or it isn’t, either it’s analytical of myths or it isn’t.

zilch Austria Posted on 10/05/2006 at 02:43 AM

zilch pic

LJ- Drive careful, my man.  In my wild and crazy youth, on various occasions I drove drunk (well, tipsy), stoned, and high on acid.  Tipsy was the most dangerous.  Don’t do it.  Cheers, your guardian angel.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 10/05/2006 at 07:39 AM

decrepitoldfool pic

Assuming that any God is also alive

Oh, but we could have had such fun if Consi had considered the possibility that God is not ‘alive’ as we understand the term.  Which would likely be true, as we understand the term.  So that would be life ‘from’ non-life, which begs the question of why it has to be a God and not a natural process.  Or is Consi a sun-worshipper?

OK, I guess I’m a sadist.

zilch Austria Posted on 10/05/2006 at 01:06 PM

zilch pic

Or is Consi a sun-worshipper?

I know I am- no Sun, no life.

Another possibility that we could have had fun discussing is that God is alive, and created life, but is not in the Universe.  Or perhaps God is not Anywhere or Anywhen, and not Anyhow or Anywho, but still created life.  I’m rambling…

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

rob adams United States Posted on 10/07/2006 at 10:08 PM

rob adams pic

I believe that the US Government is in possesion of multiple crafts and organic specimens originating from our distant planetary future of a 1000+ years hence, entirely based upon my own personal conjecture.

And i’ll deny I ever posted that sentence.

SomethingAwful United States Posted on 10/17/2006 at 12:40 PM

SomethingAwful pic

I believe that the Church wouldn’t last beyond the 22nd century.

tsk tsk

Organized religion is reaching the end of its rope

 Signature 

You got beef with me? Let’s chew on it!
Mail the beef to
and we’ll post it on board for healthy nitpicking!

http://threebeautifulthings.blogspot.com/

Page 9 of 9 pages « First  <  7 8 9

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main